Military Maritime Graves: Protection

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in offering protection to military maritime graves.

Lord Bach: I refer my noble friend to the answer given on 9 November 2001 by my honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Moonie) (Official Report, col. 435W) to the honourable Member for Hendon (Mr Dismore) in another place. A statutory instrument (SI) was made on 9 July 2002 which prohibits intrusive activity without licence on 11 vessels: HMS Bulwark, HMS Dasher, HMS Formidable, HMS Hampshire, HMS Natal, HMS A7, HMS Vanguard, HMS Affray, HMS Exmouth, HMS Royal Oak and H5, and in addition the U-boat U12, as representative of all U-boats lost in United Kingdom territorial waters. The SI prohibits intrusive activity without licence by UK nationals on a further five vessels. HMS Hood, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Repulse, HMS Gloucester and RFA Sir Galahad which lie in international waters. These regulations come into force on 30 September 2002.

Army Headquarters

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have completed the final assessment of the decision to locate the Army's headquarters in the North in Edinburgh.

Lord Bach: A post project evaluation into this decision has been completed and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

House Price Increases

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the view of Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, stated at paragraph 20 of the Minutes of its July meeting, that the current rate of increase in house prices is clearly unsustainable.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. The rate of increase in house prices over the past year is clearly unsustainable.

Dome and Greenwich Peninsula: Planning Applications

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which Minister will be responsible for taking decisions relating to planning applications in respect of the Dome and surrounding developments on the Greenwich peninsula.

Lord Rooker: Taking account of the constituency interests and other policy responsibilities of Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), and in order to ensure that the advice set out in the Guidance on Property Issues in the Handling of Planning Casework is followed, the Deputy Prime Minister has decided that any planning matters arising in respect of the Dome and related developments should be dealt with by Mr Christopher Leslie MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State).
	I will be responsible within ODPM for policy issues relating to the Dome.

Office of Deputy Prime Minister

Baroness Serota: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the allocation of responsibilities among Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be settled.

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has now allocated responsibilities among Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as shown in the table below.
	
		
			  Responsibilities 
			 The Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP—Minister of State for Local Government and Regions Will lead on local government, regional governance, the fire service, fire safety, building regulations and London resilience issues. 
			 The Rt Hon Barbara Roche MP—Minister of State for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women Will lead on social exclusion, homelessness and rough sleepers issues and the work of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the Government Offices. She also continues with her responsibilities for women and equality issues as Deputy Minister for Women. 
			 The Rt Hon Lord Rooker—Minister of State for Housing, Planning and Regeneration Will lead on housing, planning, urban policy and regulatory reform issues; and work of the Office in the House of Lords and will support the Deputy Prime Minister in the promotion of the Dome-based regeneration proposals. 
			 Chris Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Will support Nick Raynsford generally, with particular responsibility for the fire service, building regulations and e-local government. He will also support Barbara Roche on social exclusion and the work of the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the Government Offices. He will lead on public appointments issues, the work of the Business Co-ordination Unit and the QEII Conference Centre. He will also act as Planning Minister for the Dome, and Green Minister, Corporate Minister and Ministerial e-Champion for the Office. 
			 Tony McNulty MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Will support Jeff Rooker generally on housing, planning and urban policy issues, with particular responsibility for the Rent Service and the Planning Inspectorate. He will also provide support on the Dome-based regeneration proposals. He will support Barbara Roche on the work of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, and on homelessness and rough sleepers issues. He will be Minister for London. He will lead on the work of the Ordnance Survey and on diversity issues as they relate to the responsibilities and operation of the Office.

Vibration White Finger: Claims

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether claimants are cancelling their services claims in mineworkers' vibration white finger (VWF) due to delays in the tendering process for their second medicals; and, if so, what action they propose to take to remedy this.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: To date, just over 13,800 claims have been received for VWF services—compensation for household tasks where additional assistance is required such as DIY or gardening. Out of these, nearly 2,400 have been preliminary processed and 109 claims are no longer being pursued. This is mostly in response to a denial.
	No figures are available for the number of claimants (if any) who have withdrawn a services claim whilst waiting for the services medical contract to be tendered.

Clergy: Employment Rights

Baroness Turner of Camden: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Given that the Ecclesiastical Committee is unable under its term of reference to receive representatives from the union to which members of the clergy belong, they will reconsider the position of the clergy and their rights as employees.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The functions and powers of the Ecclesiastical Committee are set out in the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, as amended, and relate to the consideration of measures approved by the General Synod. We are considering the employment status of the clergy in our review of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights. As part of this review, we published a discussion document on 11 July 2002.

Adoption Proceedings

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What directions are to be issued to judges on the conduct of care and adoption proceedings in the light of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of P C and S v The United Kingdom.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The judgment in the case of P C and S v The United Kingdom was delivered on 16 July 2002. We are carefully considering its implications in partnership with the senior judiciary.

Crumlin Road Courthouse

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 17 July (WA 155-56) concerning Crumlin Road Courthouse, what was the nominal sum for which the property was sold in July 1999.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Crumlin Road Courthouse was sold for a nominal sum of £1. This formed part of the public private partnership scheme to build a modern courts complex situated at Langanside, Belfast.

Defra Budget

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs departmental report 2002, whether the decline in spending on animal health and welfare planned for 2002–03 reflects an anticipated fall in BSE compensation; and whether its budget will cope with a bovine tuberculosis increase.

Lord Whitty: Further to the written reply provided to my noble friend Lady David on 23 July (HL Deb. WA 58), subsequently, extra funds have been obtained for DEFRA from the reserve for the current financial year. We are considering how best to use the additional funding; to take forward work on areas such as bovine tuberculosis.

Prions Testing Capacity in UK

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the capacity in the United Kingdom for testing for prions in 2000; and whether in the past six months there has been any alteration in that capacity.

Lord Whitty: In 2000, UK TSE testing capacity was sufficient to meet diagnostic and research requirements and to carry out ad hoc surveys of cattle entering the over thirty months scheme (OTMS). Since then, major EU-wide cattle and sheep testing programmes have been introduced and capacity has greatly increased. In the past six months, new facilities have come on stream at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory at Shrewsbury.

Road Haulage: Procurement

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 27 June (WA 154-55), why Snowie was awarded a road haulage contract through the negotiated procurement procedure when six other firms won contracts as a result of the competitive tendering process; whether any other road haulage contracts were awarded through the use of the negotiated procurement procedure, if so, when they were dated; to whom they were awarded; and for what sums of money.

Lord Whitty: Pursuant to the Written Answer I gave on 27 June (WA 154-55), Snowie was awarded a road haulage contract through the negotiated procurement procedure without the prior publication of an Official Journal (OJEU) notice because the FMD outbreak required us to act very swiftly. As the recent NAO report (The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease, paragraph 4.51 page 94) made clear, many contracts which would normally have been put out to tender were awarded without competition. The department reverted to normal competitive tendering where the circumstances and priorities permitted. We are unaware of any other road haulage contracts in Northumberland awarded on the basis of the negotiated procurement procedure without the prior publication of an Official Journal (OJEU) notice.

RAF Bentwater: Sale

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 26 June (WA 141-42), whether the sale of the disused military airfield at RAF Bentwater was in the public domain when the Countryside Commission reported in 1998; and, if not, why not.

Lord Whitty: The sale of the disused military airfield at RAF Bentwater took place on 15 May 1997, as an open market sale. The then Countryside Commission was aware that the land was being sold and when it was sold. The commission was concerned about proposals for major new developments such as reuse of the site as an airport, on the part of the site within the AONB. It made its view widely known and they were taken into account in developing the planning brief for the site and the local plan for the area.

EU Olive Oil Subsidies: Fraud Reduction

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the cost to the European Union to date of using a satellite system to reduce fraud and malfeasance in relation to subsidies for olive oil; and how effective the system has been.

Lord Whitty: Work on developing a geographical information system (GIS) for olive trees is subject to dual funding by producer member states and the EU.
	The maximum amount of approved EU funding is 97,817,268 euros (£61,928,112 at current exchange rates 1 ). Of this total EU funding, producer member states spent about 35 million euros (about £22 million at current exchange rates 1 ) up to May of last year.
	The GIS is not yet fully implemented in any of the producer member states. It will be used to check against information in crop declarations. Where information does not correspond further verifications and on the spot checks will be carried out.
	1 1 euro=£0\63310

EU Tobacco Subsidies

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What estimate they have made of the cost to date to the United Kingdom, and the total cost to European Union member states as a whole, of subsidising farmers to produce tobacco that was subsequently dumped on third world markets.

Lord Whitty: Member states contribute to EU budget as a whole and not to any particular part. The UK contribution is about 12.7 per cent after the effect of the Fontainbleau abatement has been taken into account.
	In the financial year ending 15 October 2001, some 964 million euros (£610 million at current exchange rates 1 ) was spent on EU tobacco subsidies.
	We have no evidence of EU tobacco being dumped on third world markets but exports to third world countries in 2001 were 2,751 tonnes 2 .
	1 Euro = £0\63310
	2 Source: Comexdata 2001

EU Fishing Policy

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What estimate they have made of the extent of ecological damage to fishing grounds historically in British waters from "fishing out" by European Union-subsidised fishing fleets; and what co-operation there has been between Spain and the United Kingdom in addressing its consequences.

Lord Whitty: The ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems monitors the ecosystem effects of fishing activities, including the impact of fishing on the wider marine environment. UK and Spanish scientists contribute to the work of this committee. However, the committee's work to date has made no distinction between the impact of fleets receiving subsidies and those that do not. The one stock that could be described as "fished out" in historic British waters is herring. This took place before the introduction of the common fisheries policy(CFP). The stock has since improved under it.
	The CFP is the means by which fisheries are managed in the European Union and the UK is keen for progress to be made through the present reform of the CFP on the removal of counter-productive fleet subsidies and the greater integration of environmental concerns in fishing policy. This will require measures to address the adverse effects of fishing on marine habitats. Progress in these areas will depend on co-operation between all member states.

Agricultural Grants

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by Lord Whitty on 16 July (WA 136) and 23 July (WA 51-52), whether the costs of administration were made on the same basis, and, if not, why not.

Lord Whitty: Since 1 April 2001, agricultural grants and subsidies have been administered by the Rural Payments Agency whereas the schemes which comprise the England Rural Development Programme have been administered mainly by the Rural Development Service within DEFRA. The estimated costs given in the previous answers were prepared on a comparable basis as far as possible, bearing in mind that they are two different organisations.

Agricultural Grants

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why it costs 150 per cent more to administer grants under the England Rural Development Programme than it does for agricultural grants and subsidies.

Lord Whitty: The Rural Payments Agency's processing of agricultural grants and subsidies is mainly office-based, apart from a small percentage of compliance inspections in the field. It consists largely of checking the eligibility, based on standard rules, of claims received from farmers and traders and arranging payment. There is a wide customer base and the total value of payments made is £2.2 billion.
	The schemes in the England Rural Development Programme are for the most part specially tailored to individual farms or projects, each requiring detailed assessment to ensure benefits will be delivered. In the agri-environment schemes, for example, the processing of applications involves a site visit by a technical expert in almost every case both to assess and develop the proposals and to give conservation management advice. Experience has shown that such visits are important in terms of securing the desired environmental outputs; for example, habitat restoration, over the life of the 10-year agreement which the land manager will subsequently sign, and hence obtaining best value for money for the taxpayer. The customer base for these schemes is narrower and the total value of payment is just over £200 million. For all these reasons the administration costs are higher.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Contingency Plans

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make available for consultation their contingency plans for handling a future possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the interests of public confidence in their ability to handle such a crisis.

Lord Whitty: Following initial stakeholder consultation, the interim contingency plan was publicised by a news release and placed on the DEFRA website on 12 March 2002 together with a mailbox inviting comments. The plan has since been updated and a revised version placed on the website for comment on 3 July 2002.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Contingency Plans

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have entirely revised their contingency plans for dealing with a possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease following the outbreak in 2001 and the ensuing reports into the way it was handled.

Lord Whitty: An interim contingency plan was developed and publicised in March and has continued to be worked upon and updated over the last few months. Now that both the Royal Society study of infectious diseases of livestock and the Lessons Learned inquiry have reported, the plan will be further amended to take account of the recommendations made.
	The plan is very much a 'living' document. It is expected that it will be subject to regular revision taking on the latest scientific advice and comments from stakeholders and operational partners.

Defra Report: Working for the Essentials of Life

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report Working for the Essentials of Life was published; why there was no date on the report; whether it is their policy that all government publications should be dated; and, if so, what steps they propose to ensure that such a policy is implemented.

Lord Whitty: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published Working for the Essentials of Life 20 March 2002. The document set out the department's priorities and 106 key commitments for the coming year. It is normal practice that such documents are dated, have a reference number and clear contact details for DEFRA. We regret that due to an oversight during publication no date was printed on Working for the Essentials of Life, although a reference number and contact details were. It is a standard requirement of contractors producing such material that these elements are printed on all documents and this is enforced through normal contractual procedures.

Radioactive Waste Management

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on the consultation paper Managing radioactive waste safely published jointly in September 2001 by the UK Government and the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Lord Whitty: The consultation ended on 12 March and today we are publishing a summary of the 330 responses received by the UK Government and the devolved administrations. We have considered the many comments made on the specific issues on which Managing radioactive waste safely sought views, and the other comments which some recipients offered, and are now outlining the next steps which the UK Government and devolved administrations have agreed will be taken in the policy process.
	We now propose to press ahead with a review of waste management options. The review will seek the views of interested stakeholders, the public and government departments. We will appoint an independent body to oversee the review process which will make recommendations on the option, or combination of options, for managing radioactive waste which achieves long-term protection for people and the environment. We will review all options and revise the timetable to a four rather than five stage process. We, the UK Government and the devolved administrations, will continue to be responsible for taking the ultimate decision on the management option.
	We propose that the new body will be in place by the end of the year. We will advertise widely for the members of this new body and they will be appointed jointly by Ministers from the UK Government and the devolved administrations. We will be seeking people who will bring technical expertise and people who will bring a wider perspective of environmental, health, social or ethical issues. We will also want to ensure that its membership is drawn from across the UK. Further details will be announced later. This new body must win public confidence and operate in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. The review process must engage with stakeholders and the public. The first step of the review will be to set the framework for debate by establishing broad agreement on the wastes to be considered, the range of management options for each of them, and the criteria against which these options should be assessed. The second step will be to assess each option including commissioning any new research required. The final step will draw up recommendations for Ministers to consider.
	The Managing radioactive waste safely consultation was the first stage in our programme. The appointment of the new body will signal the beginning of stage 2, and the process of assessing options, and it will end when we publish and explain our decision. Stage 3, around 2006, will be a public debate on how the decision should be implemented, including any site selection criteria. Stage 4, around 2007, will be the start of the implementation process including any necessary legislation. In making these changes we have taken account of views received and research undertaken. We believe that this approach will result in a more dynamic and extensive process of public engagement as the review progresses, rather than the series of public consultation exercises originally envisaged. We shall not set rigid timetables and deadlines. But we shall go faster if we can.
	Our priority is to reach the decision which achieves long-term protection of people and the environment, which inspires public confidence, and which is practicable. This approach, coupled with regular reports to the UK and Scottish Parliaments and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, will reach far more people and encourage active involvement in decision making, rather than occasional opportunties to react to consultation papers.
	The waste from our existing nuclear facilities will arise over the next century or so. So we intend, in our assessment of waste management options, to include not only materials currently classified as waste but also to consider the consequences of providing for other materials which may be have to be managed as waste during that period, such as some separated plutonium, and uranium, as well as certain quantities of spent nuclear fuel. The future management options for the UK's civil plutonium include its possible use as a fuel. However, up to 5 per cent of this stock may be so contaminated that, even though it may also be technically possible to treat and use this amount for fuel, it might prove uneconomic to do so. The Government are currently undertaking a study of the possible options for the future management of UK owned civil stock and will want to consider the results of that exercise before reaching their own conclusions on this issue. More generally, the Government urge the other owners of these materials, on a voluntary basis, to put in hand procedures now which would allow them to identify those materials which may become not economically reusable.
	The review of options will not consider potential radioactive waste sites. Our priority is to assess the management options and decide how to manage the waste. But we need to recognise that the assessment of some options will raise siting issues—including, as some consultees have suggested, whether local communities should have a veto or be encouraged to volunteer, and whether they should be offered incentives. It is important to ensure that we are clear and open when drawing up any criteria which might eventuallly be needed to identify sites in the option assessment process, and the issues which they raise.
	Over the summer and autumn, we shall publish more detailed proposals. These will include details of the new body and its terms of reference, and more detailed proposals for stage 2. They will also address pressing issues such as arrangements for managing waste safely in the short term and an announcement on waste substitution. We shall report progress on the other issues covered in the consultation, including decommissioning nuclear sites, the powers of the environment agencies, managing spent sealed sources of radioactivity, and waste classification. We will also set out how the policy process relates to other programmes, particularly the UK Government's proposals for Managing the nuclear legacy published on 4 July. A summary of the consultation responses will be placed in the Library of this House, and those of the devolved administrations. Copies of individual responses are available in the department's library, and in those of the relevant departments in the devolved administrations.

House of Lords Procedural Changes

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	When the procedural changes agreed to on Wednesday 24 July will take effect.

Lord Tordoff: The Procedure Committee recommended (5th Report, paragraph 3), and the House has now agreed, that implementation should be phased in with effect from the start of the next Session (2002–03) as resources become available. The following changes will therefore take effect at the start of the Session:
	Additional topical Starred Question on Tuesday and Wednesday; Question Time on those days extended from 30 to 40 minutes;
	Number of topical Questions per Member per Session raised from two to four;
	Motion after Second Reading to commit each Bill to the appropriate committee (subject to amendment of Standing Order 47, which will be done in the spill-over);
	House normally to rise by about 10 pm on Monday to Wednesday;
	New timetable for Thursday as follows:
	11 am—House sits for public business
	1.30 pm—House adjourns during pleasure
	3 pm—House resumes, starting with Starred Questions
	7.30 or earlier depending on business, for 1- hours—Unstarred Questions (if desired).
	The other matters will be introduced as resources become available.

Measles, Mumps and Rubella

Lord Swinfen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider the study by Professor John O'Leary of Trinity College, Dublin, to be presented to the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland next month, into measles, mumps and rubella and children with autism and bowel disease.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The abstract of Professor O'Leary's paper due to be presented to the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland has been reviewed by measles experts. Already available information suggests that the technique used cannot distinguish between vaccine and wild measles virus.

vCJD: Blood Products

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the Committee on Safety of Medicines's decision and guidance issued in 1998 not to recommend the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood derivative products due to the unknown and theoretical risk of vCJD, why 50–70,000 patients per year are still being treated with transfusion plasma derived from United Kingdom donors, and
	Why their ongoing consideration of ways to improve the safety of transfusion plasma administered by the National Health Service has not been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for independent and evidence-based appraisal of the available plasmas; and whether they plan to do so.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There is no evidence that Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or variant CJD has ever been transmitted to patients through blood or blood products. Since 1998 the Government have acted on expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines to minimise the unknown risk to patients of vCJD by sourcing plasma for the manufacture of licensed blood products from the United States and Germany.
	The United Kingdom Expert Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation (MSBT) is actively reviewing other possible ways in which the unknown risk from vCJD in blood might be reduced even further. This includes the importation of transfusion plasma known as fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (used in managing patients with severe burns, massive blood loss and supporting intensive care unit patients); the possible exclusion of people who have received blood transfusions from giving blood and work on reducing the plasma component of blood platelets. The review involves detailed risk assessments about the possible impact of such measures on secondary transmission of vCJD and the impact on the UK blood supply. In the case of FFP, the review is looking at the need for confidence in the viral inactivation techniques used for non-UK plasma and the availability of sustainable supplies. Decisions on some of these measures will be taken later this year.
	These issues have not been referred to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence as the membership of MSBT is set up specifically to look at blood safety issues and seeks specialist advice or includes the relevant specialists among its members.

Teenage Pregnancy

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whom they consulted before they responded to the first annual report of the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy was established to provide advice to government and monitor the success of the national Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. The group includes a membership draw from a wide range of individuals and organisations with experience of working with young people and teenage parents. The first annual report of the group set out 49 recommendations to government on the further delivery of the national strategy. The government response addresses these recommendations to set out a forward action plan for the next phase of delivery.
	In addition to the independent advisory group, the Teenage Pregnancy Unit has put in place arrangements to consult and involve the non-statutory sector, faith groups, relevant professional organisations, regional and local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators, young people and parents in tackling teenage pregnancy. The views of these organisations and individuals were taken into account in developing the government response.

Teenage Pregnancy

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the analysis of local audits of general practice referred to in paragraph 5.33 of their response to the first annual report of the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy indicates a change of their policy in respect to the right of conscientious objection by general practitioners to taking part in abortion operations.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government's position on conscientious objection to abortion remains unchanged. Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, provides that, except where treatment is necessary to save the life of or prevent grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman, "no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection".
	This exemption does not extend to giving advice, performing the preparatory steps to arrange an abortion where the request meets legal requirements and undertaking administration connected with abortion procedures. Doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion should make their views known to the patient and enable the patient to see another doctor without delay if that is the patient's wish.
	The General Medical Council booklet Good Medical Practice states that general practitioners' views about a patient's lifestyle or beliefs must not prejudice the treatment they provide or arrange. If they feel their beliefs might affect the treatment, this must be explained to the patient, who should be told of their right to see another doctor. Breach of this guidance may expose a doctor to a charge of serious professional misconduct and disciplinary action by the GMC.

Teenage Pregnancy

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government.
	Whether information from the national analysis of local audit will also be used to collate national and regional information on the proportion of general practitioners who have a conscientious objection to abortion or who have a practice policy not to provide contraception to under 16s.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: An analysis of the general practice audits which have been returned to the Teenage Pregnancy Unit will provide an indication of the proportion of general practitioners, nationally and regionally, who have a conscientious objection to abortion or who have a practice policy not to provide contraception to under 16s.
	Information on the analysis will be available on the Teenage Pregnancy Unit website by the end of the year.

NHS: Overseas Clinical Teams

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, as reported in the Health Service Journal on 4 July 2002, they hope that foreign teams contracted to carry out operations on National Health Service patients in England will be in place by the end of July; and, if so, what procurement procedures will have been followed.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Overseas clinical teams are already operating on National Health Service patients in England as part of a first mover wave of projects. For these projects providers were identified who could in principle bring in clinicians to a tight timetable, at an appropriate price. Central funding is only being released where providers can demonstrate high clinical quality and good value for money benchmarked against alternative sources of capacity in the local independent sector.

Valladolid: Incidence of Cancer

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether research into the incidence of cancer at a primary school in Valladolid in Spain is being considered by departmental officials with responsibility for mobile transmittal licensing policy.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The early reports of a cancer incidence in Valladolid in Spain were first noted in December 2000 and have subsequently been reported in the press. After this case received much national and international attention the World Health Organisation released a statement saying that none of the recent reviews has concluded that exposure to the radiofrequency (RF) fields from mobile phones or their base stations causes any adverse health consequence.
	The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart Group) was set up to investigate the public health implications of mobile phone technologies. Its report, based on a review of all available research to date, was published in May 2000. It concluded that the balance of evidence does not suggest that the mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population at risk. It did, however, include a recommendation to set up a substantial research programme. This programme, jointly funded by government and industry, is currently under way.
	The Stewart Group also recommended that there should be an audit of base stations to ensure that exposure guidelines were not exceeded and that base stations on or near to sensitive sites should be a priority. The Radiocommunications Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, undertook 100 audits in 2001 on schools with masts on their premises, and this exercise showed a level of emissions far below the international guidelines. All the results are on the agency website (www.radio.gov.uk).

Pregnancy Loss at Home

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What psychological or psychiatric problems may be caused to a woman following a miscarriage at home.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The guidelines issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the management of pregnancy loss indicate that many publications confirm the negative psychological impact of miscarriage on a significant proportion of women.
	In addition, publications from the Miscarriage Association and the Still Birth and Neonatal Deaths Society show that women may experience a variety of emotions, which can range from disappointment, anger, guilt, to wonder about what they did wrong, why their pregnancy ended or why their baby died. Having a miscarraige at home can sometimes be a distressing, frightening and lonely experience for some women. Women certainly feel a sense of loss and need time to grieve over the lost baby.
	While the needs of women who experience loss through miscarriage will vary in the amount and kind of support they need and in the kind of care they find acceptable, this is provided mainly through the general practitioner, midwife and health visitor who are best placed to manage their after-care. Women are also given information about the help available in the voluntary sector. The department provides support through Section 64 funding to:
	The Miscarriage Association—which provides support and information to all those suffering from the effects of miscarriage; and
	The Still Birth and Neonatal Deaths Society (SANDS)—which produces the Guidelines for Professionals on the Management of Pregnancy Loss and the Death of a Baby. The guidelines have the endorsement of all the principal Royal Colleges involved, parents and other voluntary organisations working in this area.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What psychological or psychiatric problems may be caused to a woman following the handling and disposal of an unborn child aborted by the use of the abortion drug RU 486 and;
	What advice is given to women about the disposal of the corpse of an unborn child following an abortion using abortion drug RU 486.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Women seeking an abortion should be given clear information beforehand to help them prepare for the procedure and staff are on hand to give support. A study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1 found that two years after early medical and surgical abortion procedures there were no significant differences between women who had undergone medical abortion or surgical abortion in either general, reproductive or psychological health. Almost all women placed a high value on the provision of choice of method of termination. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' evidence-based guideline The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion considered the mental health implications of termination and concluded "only a small minority of women experience any long term, adverse psychological sequelae after abortion" and stated that referral for further counselling should be available for these women.
	Guidance issued by the Department of Health in 1991 states that, for babies born dead before 24 weeks, the fetal tissue should be incinerated if the parents have not expressed any specific wishes about disposal. Terminations carried out after 24 weeks gestation (the legal age of viability) are registered as stillbirths and the law requires the body to be buried or cremated.
	1 Howle, F.L., Henshaw, R.C., Najl, S.A., Russell, I.T. & Templeton, A.A. (1997) Medical abortion or vacuum aspiration? Two year follow up of patient preference trial. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 104, 829-833.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the:
	(a) contra-indications; and
	(b) side effects; of the use of the abortion drug RU 486; and
	What studies they have undertaken during each of the last 10 years into the safety of the abortion drug RU 486.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: RU 486, now more commonly known as mifepristone (Mifegyne), is licensed for use in medical termination of pregnancy. Information on how to use mifepristone, as well as information on possible side effects, is provided in the product information for prescribers (summary of product characteristics (SPC)) and patients (patient information leaflet (PIL)).
	Warnings and contraindications for the use of mifepristone which are included in the SPC and PIL are as follows: allergy to mifepristone or any component of the product, suspected ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy not confirmed by ultrasound scan or biological tests, chronic adrenal failure, severe asthma not controlled by therapy and presence of a inter-uterine device in situ. In addition, special care should be given to patients with haemostatic disorders with hypocoagulability or with anaemia, and patients on long-term therapy with corticosteroids since corticosteroid efficacy can be decreased by concomitant treatment with mifepristone.
	istone is not recommended for use in patients with hepatic or renal failure or in women over 35 years of age and who smoke more than 10 cigarettes a day.
	As with all medicines, Mifepristone is not without side effects. Some of the side effects experienced by patients such as pain, uterine contractions, or cramping and vaginal bleeding result from the termination of pregnancy. Side effects of the medication which may occur in some women include nausea, vomiting, stomach cramping, hypersensitivity reactions such as skin rashes and urticaria, headaches, malaise, hot flushes, dizziness, chills and fever.
	The Medicines Control Agency, with advice from the independent scientific advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, is responsible for monitoring the safety of all marketed medicines.
	The safety of mifepristone was evaluated at the time of granting a marketing authorisation and continues to be monitored using information from clinical trials, post-marketing studies and from spontaneous adverse reaction reports. There have been a large number of studies and reviews of the safety of mifepristone published in the scientific literature in the last 10 years.
	Induced abortion is one of the most commonly performed gynaecological procedures in Great Britain. Abortion, both surgical and medical, is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and complications are uncommon. All available evidence in terms of safety and efficacy of mifeprestone was reviewed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists when producing its evidence based clinical guideline The Care of Women Seeking Induced Abortion (2000) and is referenced. Medical abortion is one of the methods recommended in the guideline.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current rate of incomplete abortions following the use of the abortion drug RU 486.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: All methods of first trimester abortion carry a risk of failure to terminate the pregnancy, thus necessitating a further procedure. The evidence based clincal guideline The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion (2000) produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that the failure rate for medical abortions is around 6 per thousand.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What counselling is available to a woman—
	(a) contemplating an abortion using the abortion drug RU 486;
	(b) during such an abortion; and
	(c) after such an abortion.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists's evidence-based guideline The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion (2000), which applies to both medical and surgical abortions, recognises the importance of women seeking abortion receiving accurate impartial information. Verbal advice must be supported by printed information which every women considering abortion can understand and may take away and read before the procedure.
	Clinicians caring for women requesting abortion should try to identify those patients who require more support in decision-making than can be provided in the routine clinic setting. Facilities for additional support, including access to social services, should be available. Appropriate information and support should be available for those who consider, but do not proceed to, abortion.
	Professionals should be equipped to provide women with the information they need in order to give genuinely informed consent: that abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon; description of the abortion methods that are available; immediate complications; and complications in the early weeks following abortion. During the procedure, staff are on hand to give support to women.
	The guideline also considers the mental health implications of termination and concludes: ''Only a small minority of women experience any long-term, adverse psychological sequelae after abortion. Early distress, although common, is usually a continuation of symptoms present before the abortion. Conversely, long-lasting, negative effects on both mothers and their children are reported where abortion has been denied.''
	Referral for further counselling should be available for the small minority of women who experience long-term post abortion distress.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are fully satisfied that the abortion drug RU 486 will be administered only in accordance with the Abortion Act 1967, as amended by Section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under Section 2(2) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, registered medical practitioners must notify the Chief Medical Officer of every completed termination of pregnancy they perform. The notification form contains detailed information relating to the procedure including the doctors who certified there were grounds under the Act, gestation, method used and place of termination. Every form is checked and monitored by Department of Health officials to ensure that the abortion was performed within the provisions of the Act.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they believe that the abortion drug RU 486 is safer than surgical abortion.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Depending on the gestation at which a woman presents for abortion and her individual circumstances, one or more different abortion methods may be appropriate. Both medical and surgical abortions are safe. Ideally, abortion services should offer women a choice of recommended methods for relevant gestation bands.
	Abortion, both medical and surgical, is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and complications are uncommon. The risk of complication is lowered the earlier in pregnancy an abortion is performed.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the total cost to the National Health Service in each of the last five years to provide the abortion drug RU 486; and
	What they estimate will be the savings during each of the next five years to the National Health Service of using the abortion drug RU 486 instead of surgical abortion.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information available relates to all medical abortions, of which about 95 per cent are undertaken using RU 486.
	The estimated cost to the National Health Service for NHS-funded medical abortions that took place on NHS premises in England is given in the table. This information is not available prior to 1998–99.
	
		
			  Inpatient and day  case activity Outpatient attendances(2) 
			 1998–99 £3.9 million Not available 
			 1999–00 £4.4 million Not available 
			 2000–01 £5.2 million £1.8 million 
		
	
	Source: National Schedule of Refence Costs
	(1) A medical abortion, using RU 486, is a two-stage process. The first stage which is the administering of the drug RU 486, often takes place in an outpatient clinic.
	(2) The outpatient clinic component of the cost of medical abortions is not available prior to 2000–01.
	The independent sector also undertakes some medical abortions, using RU 486, under NHS contract. Costs to the NHS for these abortions are not collected centrally.
	It is important that women should be offered a choice of recommended methods for relevant gestation bands, in accordance with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' evidence-based guideline The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion (2000). The Government have not set targets or made projections for the future uptake and costs of medical abortion. There is no significant difference in the overall costs between surgical and medical abortion.

Mifepristone

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the statements made on 17 May by Dr Richard Hausknecht, medical director of the RU 486 manufacturer Danco, that the use of the abortion drug RU 486:
	(a) "is not safer than a surgical abortion";
	(b) "is fraught with risk and problems";
	(c) "includes the taking of two or perhaps five hazardous drug combinations"; and
	(d) "too often has complications ranging from moderate bleeding to severe pain, and for some women blood transfusions; and
	Whether they agree with the statements made in August 1990 by Edouardo Sakiz, the then chairman of the RU 486 abortion drug developer Roussel-Uclaf, that the abortion drug RU 486:
	(a) "is not at all easy to use";
	(b) is "more complex to use than the technique of vacuum extraction"; and
	(c) causes a woman "an appalling psychological ordeal".

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have not seen the full text of Drs Hausknecht's and Sakiz's statements and cannot confirm whether the comments attributed to them are accurate. RU 486, now more commonly known as mifepristone, has been licensed for use in medical termination of pregnancy since 1991. The Medicines Control Agency in conjunction with its independent scientific advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, is responsible for monitoring the safety of all marketed medicines to ensure that medicines meet acceptable standards of safety and efficacy.
	Medical abortion is one of the methods recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its evidence based clinical guideline The Care of Women Seeking Induced Abortion (2000).

Haemophilia Society Report

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations have been received from the Haemophilia Society by Ms Hazel Blears, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, further to her meeting in June with the society on financial assistance for haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products; what consideration the Department of Health's financial-economic team have given to the proposals; and what reply is being sent to the Haemophilia Society.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are considering the Haemophilia Society's detailed report and will respond as soon as this has been completed.

Hip Replacements

Lord Jacobs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	(a) how many people are waiting for hip replacements;
	(b) what is the annual demand for this operation;
	(c) and, if these figures are not at present available, why they are not; and when they will be.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The number of patients waiting for elective admission to hospital for hip replacement is not collected centrally. Our aim is to balance data requirements with the burden that they place on the National Health Service, and there are no plans to start collecting this information.
	Data on patients waiting for elective admission is collected on the consultant's main specialty function. Usually patients waiting for hip replacement are listed under the trauma and orthopaedic specialty. At 31 March 2002, 260,000 patients were waiting for elective admission to hospital in the trauma and orthopaedic specialty.
	During the financial year 2000–01, 70,000 hip replacements were performed.

Diabetes National Service Framework

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they are making towards forming the Diabetes National Service Framework; and whether specific funding will be allocated to implement it; and
	Whether they will make resources available to ensure that the Diabetes National Service Framework is effective; and
	Whether they will make it clear to local health bodies that diabetes is a funding priority and should be included in future local health improvement programmes; and[H
	Whether they have any plans to encourage local health providers (for example, general practitioner practices) to meet agreed diabetes standards by receiving additional central funds for so doing; and
	Whether they believe that spending money on preventing and managing diabetes now will save money, as well as lives, over the long term, as the complications of diabetes can be delayed or avoided; and
	Whether they think investment in the Diabetes National Service Framework will also help deliver existing government targets, for example, those on older people and heart disease.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We published the standards for the Diabetes National Service Framework in December 2001. The forthcoming delivery strategy for the framework will set requirements for implementation at local level. Planning at a local level will respond to these requirements, taking account of local priorities and progress, and showing how milestones will be reached. Local strategies to deliver the framework will also be integrated in the wider planning process.
	Funding for diabetes is being considered as part of the current government Spending Review, together with other priorities. The Budget provides the highest sustained growth in NHS history, with annual average increases of 7.4 per cent in real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year. The pace of change for delivery of the Diabetes National Service Framework will take account of the resources that will be available.
	Diabetes shares a number of common risk factors with coronary heart disease and stroke. Investment in the promotion of healthier lifestyles and in the control of blood pressure, in particular, will help to combat all three conditions. The standards for the Diabetes National Service Framework highlight the importance of common strategies for prevention and treatment. In doing so, they build on the National Service Frameworks for Coronary Heart Disease and Older People.
	Under the new general medical services contract for general practitioners, a quality framework will reward practices for delivering quality care and provide extra incentives to encourage even higher standards of care. The NHS Confederation and the General Practice Committee of the British Medical Associations are negotiating the content of the quality framework and this includes detailed clinical standards and their levels. The framework agreement makes clear that the standards will be fair, reasonable and evidence-based.

Mental Health Bill, Clause 6(4)

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With reference to the draft Mental Health Bill, for the most recent period for which data are available on which reasonable estimates can be based, (a) what number of patients would fall under Clause 6(4) of that Bill; (b) what illnesses would they be diagnosed with and in what numbers; (c) what classes of treatment are available for those illnesses; and (d) what plans there are to refer those treatments to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence for their consideration.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Nobody will be subject to compulsory treament under the Bill's proposals who does not meet all the conditions for compulsion. It is not a question of different people being treated under different conditions. (a) The best estimate of the number of patients who could be so dealt with can be derived from the latest statistics of the number of inpatients detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983. This bulletin is prepared by the Government Statistical Service and was last published in October 2001.
	We should add to this the estimate of people who are dangerous by virtue of severe personality disorder and who could be treated under the Bill but could fall outside the scope of the 1983 Act. This estimate is derived from the Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity Survey of Prisoners (1997). The estimate is that 124 such people might be dealt with per annum under the Bill. (b) It is estimated that in total 26,774 people per annum coud be made subject to compulsory treatment under the Bill. This is based on experience of the operation of the 1983 Act; 26,650 formal admissions to hospital were recorded in 2000–01; and the estimate of the number of people who are dangerous by virtue of severe personality disorder and who could be treated under the Bill but who could fall outside the scope of the 1983 Act.
	We do not expect any significant change in the diagnosis of mental disorder under which people meet the conditions. It is likely, however, that the number of people with a primary diagnosis of personality disorder treated under the powers of the Bill will be higher than those of the 1983 Act.
	At 31 March 2001, 13,829 people were detained. The break-down by mental disorder was:
	Mental illness: 11,164
	Psychopathic disorders: 698
	Mental impairment: 842
	Severe mental impairment: 166
	Not specified: 959 (c) The same classes of treatment will be available for patients who fall within the scope of the draft Bill as to those that are available for all other patients with mental disorders. (d) The same procedure for referring treatments to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will apply to all treatments that may be provided to patients with mental disorders.

Adoption: European Court of Human Rights Judgment

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What directions or guidance they propose to issue to social services departments of local authorities in the light of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of P.C. and S.v the United Kingdom.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government received the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of P.C. and S. v the United Kingdom on Tuesday 16 July 2002. The Court did not find any Department of Health legislation or guidance to be in breach of the convention. However, the judgment has raised a number of issues that the Department of Health is giving careful consideration to. The department will ensure that these issues are kept carefully in mind as it develops the guidance necessary to implement the adoption legislation currently before Parliament.

Dental Treatment

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many patients were registered with (a) the general dental services; and (b) the community dental services in each year since 1990, showing the figure both as a total and as a percentage of the population.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to National Health Service services by calling NHS Direct. this means that even if a patient is not registered with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.
	The number of patients registered in the general dental service and the percentage of patients registered per population for September each year from 1992 to 2001 is shown in the table.
	Comparable data for 1990 and 1991 are not available as registrations were introduced only in October 1990 and registration numbers had not yet had time to reach consistent levels.
	Registration numbers were reduced by the shortening of the registration period for new registrations from September 1996. The adult registration period changed from 24 months to 15 months. The child registration period changed to 15 months; previously child registrations expired at the end of the following calendar year. Hence, registration numbers after 1997 are not comparable to the numbers for earlier years.
	The data are also affected by improvements in the methods used for the removal of duplicate registration records which were first employed in 1993 by the Dental Practice Board.
	Patients with the community dental service (CDS) are not registered for dental treatment therefore registration data for the CDS is not available.
	
		General dental service: Number of patients registered (3) and percentage of the population registered, 1992 to 2001 -- England
		
			 At 30 September Number of patients registered (4) (millions) Percentage of population (3) registered 
			 1992 28.7 59 
			 1993 28.9 60 
			 1994 28.4 58 
			 1995 27.3 56 
			 1996 26.8 55 
			 1997 26.8 54 
			 1998 23.5 47 
			 1999 23.5 47 
			 2000 23.7 47 
			 2001 23.6 47 
		
	
	(3) Based on the number of registrations at 30 September each year.
	(4) The number registered is affected by the shortening of the registration period to 15 months from September 1996.
	(5) Office for National Statistics mid-year adult population estimates used to calculate percentage of patients registered.

Dental Treatment

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list the number of calls made each month since the introduction of NHS Direct by people seeking dental treatment; and how many of these patients (a) were treated on a single visit basis; or (b) became permanently registered with the suggested dentist.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The following table shows the number of telephone calls to NHS Direct from patients seeking dental treatment from November 2001 to April 2002. The percentage of calls meeting local distance standards for referral to dental services is also included.
	No information is available about the dental services which these callers subsequently received.
	
		NHS Direct: Total number of dental related calls and percentage of calls meeting the Prime Minister's pledge distance standards, November 2001 to April 2002
		
			 Month Number of Calls(3) Percentage within distance standards 
			 November-01 10,900 94 
			 December-01 10,000 95 
			 January-02 13,100 94 
			 February-02 10,300 93 
			 March-02 12,900 92 
			 April-02 15,500 93 
		
	
	Notes:
	(6) Information from some call centres is not available in some months due to data-processing problems.

Dental Treatment

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the average cost of a course of dental treatment within the general dental services for (a) adults; and (b) children exempt from payment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The average cost per course of dental treatment in the general dental service (GDS) for adult patients exempt from paying dental charges for England was £53.17 in 2001–02. This exludes patients who are partially exempt from paying dental charges. Including the partly exempt patients, the average cost was £53.45 for 2001–02.
	The average cost per course of dental treatment in the GDS for children in 2001–02 was £34.53 for England. Remuneration for courses of treatment involving an examination only are covered by the registration payment so are excluded from this average cost.

Dental Treatment

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the average adult patient contribution towards the cost of dental treatment within the general dental services.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The average charge-payers contribution rate per course of treatment in the general dental service was £23.28 in 2002–02 in England. This figure includes patients with an HC3 certificate for partial remission from dental charges.
	People who fall into the following categories are exempt from charges.
	Aged under 18.
	Aged under 19 and in full-time education.
	Receiving income support or income-based jobseekers allowance.
	Pregnant or has borne a child within the last 12 calendar months.
	Receiving working families tax credits or disabled person's tax credits, which are not reduced by more than £72.20 per week.
	Hold a current HC2 exemption certificate.
	Those people who do not fall into these categories may be able to receive partial help through the low income scheme.

Dental Treatment

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the Department of Health's report Options for Change; and whether they have decided the locations of the 10 demonstration sites.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We intend to publish the Options for Change report on NHS dentistry shortly.
	Options for Change will propose that new approaches are tested, assessed and fine tuned at a local level through demonstration sites to provide a better deal for patients, dentists and the NHS before any national decisions are made. Demonstration sites will be run through the Modernisation Agency, which will be inviting formal expressions of interests following the publication of the Options for Change report.

Physiotherapists

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many (a) physiotherapists and (b) neuro-physiotherapists are currently employed in the National Health Service; and what are their plans to increase the numbers.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As at 30 September 2001, there were 16,210 physiotherapists employed in the National Health Service in England. Neuro-physiotherapists are not identified separately in the Non-medical Workforce Census.
	Our latest workforce projections estimate that there will be around 8,000 more physiotherapists in 2009 than there were in 2001.

NHS Efficiency

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the underlying data for changes in activity levels and hospital and community health services expenditure expressed in volume form which are shown in graphical form in Figure 7.7 of the Department of Health's departmental report (Cm 5403) so that the efficiency increase of 3 per cent over the 10 years to 1999–2000 referred to on page 71 of the report can be analysed for each of those years.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The table shows the underlying changes in activity levels and hospital and community health service expenditure over last 10 years for which data is available.
	
		
			  CWAI Volume Growth Real Terms 
			  HCHS cost weighted activity index Expenditure adjusted for changes in input unit costs Expenditure in real terms 
			  Index 1988–89 = 100 Index 1988–89 = 100 Index 1988–89 = 100 
			 1989–90 100.0 100.0 100.0 
			 1990–91 101.3 100.9 101.8 
			 1991–92 106.6 103.6 108.4 
			 1992–93 109.9 106.8 115.7 
			 1993–94 114.3 108.5 118.6 
			 1994–95 119.1 110.0 121.7 
			 1995–96 123.8 111.9 125.0 
			 1996–97 125.8 113.6 126.3 
			 1997–98 128.1 116.1 127.4 
			 1998–99 130.7 119.5 132.6 
			 1999–00 132.1 127.7 144.6

NHS Efficiency

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What estimates they have made of the difference between changes in activity levels in hospital and community health services expenditure expressed in volume terms for the year 2001–02.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No estimates have been made of the differences between changes in activity levels and in hospital and community health services expenditure expressed in volume terms for the year 2001–02.

NHS Efficiency

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish final figures for general and acute activity, analysed into elective and non-elective activity, for the year ended 31 March.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department of Health expects to publish the hospital episode statistics for the year 2001–02 in the autumn. Figures will be available on the DH website at www.doh.gov.uk/hes/

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the judgment of the House of Lords of 20 June concerning the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in particular the comments of Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough in paragraph 72 on amici curiae.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government are pleased that the House of Lord's ruling has confirmed that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission may apply to the courts to intervene in legal proceedings when there is an issue about human rights.
	We were interested to read Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough's comments.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the request of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to have a say in the allocation of public finance in Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Paragraph 2.1.1 of the minutes of the commission meeting held on 14 January 2002 states that the chief commissioner will write to the Northern Ireland Executive with regard to the commission monitoring the allocation of public funds in Northern Ireland. As this is a matter between the commission and the devolved administration in Northern Ireland, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to comment.
	A copy of the minutes of the meeting will be placed in the Library.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they were asked by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to intervene in the House of Lords case about its powers; and, if so, whether they declined to support the commission.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 14 February 2002 requesting that the Government intervene in the commission's appeal to the House of Lords on 11 March. The Government, who had always understood the commission to have the power to intervene as a third party, was happy to intervene on behalf of the commission.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide a breakdown of the composition of the staff of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission by (a) religion, (b) by gender and (c) by the number of staff who are disabled; and whether this breakdown represents a true reflection of the Northern Ireland workforce as a whole.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as the commission directly employes its own staff.
	The chief commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

Castlereagh Police Complex: Security

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 20 June (WA104-5) concerning security at Castlereagh police complex, whether there has been a review which resulted in a tightening of security at the complex since 17 March.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes.

Crumlin Road Prison

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the former HM Prison in the Crumlin Road in Belfast.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The former HM Prison Belfast is now the responsibility of the devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Activity

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that an organisation which is developing terrorist weapons can be considered to be creating a threat against people and a serious risk to the health or safety of the public.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear there can be no halfway house on the road to peace. All paramilitary activity, including training and targeting, must stop, along with the decommissioning of all terrorist weapons.

North Belfast: Security Force Operation, 12 July

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list all the items which could cause damage to people and property which were captured by security forces in North Belfast on 12 July.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: During a security force operation in the Ardoyne area of North Belfast at 5.30 am on 12 July security forces recovered the following items from the roof of the Credit Union:
	82 spikes;
	4 petrol bombs in a crate;
	50 beer bottles;
	approximately 100 bricks;
	20 x 1 foot long pieces of angle iron bent like boomerangs;
	2 sections of insulator pre-fab roofing 3- feet x 11 feet (No roofs in the vicinity are constructed with this material);
	an assortment of wooden posts 2 inch x 2 inch and 2 inch x 4 inch all between 4 feet and 6 feet long;
	6 x - inch solid steel rods between 6 feet and 8 feet long with ends cut at an angle.

PSNI: Current Strength

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the strength of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, excluding the full-time reserve policemen; what was the figure recommended by the Patten report; and whether the present strength of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is adequate to provide efficient policing in Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The current number of regular officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland is 6,879.
	Patten Recommendation 105 states that "provided the peace process does not collapse and the security situation does not deteriorate significantly from the situation pertaining at present, the approximate size of the police service over the next 10 years should be 7,500 full time officers". Patten also recommended the disbandment of the full-time reserve, but currently there are over 2,000 FTR officers in the police service.
	The Government are committed to ensuring the chief constable has all the resources he needs to maintain an efficient and effective police service in whatever environment pertains and will be guided by the chief constable's assessment of policing requirements.
	The police service and the Policing Board are currently developing a human resource strategy which will ensure that the PSNI can make optimum use of all of the resources it has available.

British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the role of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat; and how much does it cost to run annually.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat supports the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference established by the British-Irish Agreement and deals with non-devolved Northern Ireland matters. The expenditure of the secretariat is met by the two governments and the cost to the British Government in 2001–02 was £554K.

Cabinet Committee Meetings

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 10 July (WA 98), how the giving of information on the number and duration of Cabinet meetings fetters "the ability of Ministers to meet and discuss policy issues in private" or inhibits "effective decision making".

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Issues are discussed and agreed by Ministers in many different ways. If the occasion and duration of Cabinet and Cabinet committee meetings were known publicly, the likely speculation about what could be read into this information could inhibit the use of the full range of effective decision-making processes.